N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T J DIEDERIC H, individually , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. PR OVIDENC E HEALTH & SER VIC ES, a W a shington c orporation, DB A Provide nc e He a lth & Se rvic e sW a shington, DB A Provide nc e St. Pe t e r Hospita l; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35494 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01558-R AJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 4, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, GOULD, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED AUG 05 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Dr. R obe rt Die de ric h a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs gra nting
sum m ary judgm e nt on his re ta lia

tion c la im , lim iting thepote n tia l da m a ge s on his bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im , and dismissing his wrongful te rm ination a

nd tortious inte rfe re nc e c la i m s a ga inst his forme r re side nc y progra m at Provide nc e Hospita l. 1 W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re ve rse in pa rt the distric t
c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt orde r on Die de ric h’ s sta te re t a lia tion c la im , dism iss Die de ric h’ s c ontra c t -da

m a ge s a ppe a l a s m o o t, a

nd a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Die d e ric h’ s wrongful te rm ination a nd tortious inte

rfe re nc e c la im s. 1. Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora b le to Die de ric h, se e Gre e n v . C ity & C n ty . of San Franc isc o , 751 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th C ir. 2014), we c onc lude that Die de ric h pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to e sta blish a prim a fa c ie c la i m

tha t Provide nc e re t a lia

te d a ga inst him ba s e d on his la w suit a ga inst his forme r e m ploy e r
and re side nc y

progra m dire c tor. Som e tim e in De c e m be r 2007, thedire c tor of Provide nc e ’ s fam ily

pra c tic e re side nc y

progra m told Die de ric h , “ I le arne d a ll a bout y ou,” and som e tim e shortly a fte r that, he told Die de ric h, “ I spoke with Sa m C ullison.”The e v ide nc e in the re c ord shows tha t a se rie s of a dve rse a c tions
a ga inst Die de ric h be ga

n in Ja nua ry 2008, c ulm inating in his te rm ination in Se pte m be r 2008. Die de ric h ’ s te rm ination le tte r state d thre e spe c ific re a sons for his

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, so we do not re c ount the m he re . 2te rm ination. Thea ppe a ls boa

rd uphe ld Die de ric h ’ s te rm ination by a four to one vote , but it did not re l y

on the grounds c ite d in thete rm ination le tte r. Inste a d, it
c ite d c o nc e rns re ga

rding Die de ric h’ s profe s siona lism and pe rform anc e ove r the nine m onths le a ding up to the te rm ination. C onside ring the tim ing of the dire c tor’ s c om m e n ts a nd the be ginning of the

disc iplina

ry a c tions a ga inst Die de ric h, a long with thea ppe a ls boa

rd’ s a ppa re nt de pa rture from

or possibly sum

m ary sta t e m e nt of the sta te d ba sis for Die de ric h’ s te rm ination, a ra tiona l fa c t finde r c ould infe r, for purpose s of a

prim a fa c ie c a se , tha

t Die de ric h ’ s supe riors at

Provide nc e le arne d of his prior la

w suit a n d re ta lia te d a ga inst him

on tha t ba sis. A ge nuine issue of
m ate ria l fa c t e x ists on this issue pe rtine nt to this re ta l iation c l a im , but tha t doe s not
ne c e ssa rily re solve the Mc

Donne ll-Douglas ana ly sis. S e e Ty ne r v . State , 154 P.3d 920, 928 (W a sh. C t. App. 2007) (a pply ing Mc

Donne ll-Douglasburde n-shifting fra m e work to W a shington La w Aga inst Disc rim ination (W LAD) re ta lia tion c la im ). 2. The distric t c ourt did not c onside r whe the r Provide nc e sta te d a le g itim ate nondisc rim inatory

re a son for disc iplining, a n d ultim ate ly

te rm inating, Die de ric h. In fa c t, the distric t c ourt de nie d Provide nc e ’ s m otion to supple m e nt the re c ord with
e vide nc e showing it lac ke d knowle dge tha t Die de ric h sue d his form e r re side nc y program and its dire c tor, a

nd tha t it wa s “ not m otiva

te d by disc rim i natory

anim us.” B e c a use this issue wa s not de c ide d by the distric t c ourt a

nd m ay re quire e v a luation 3of a dditiona l e vide nc e , we de c l ine to c onside r it on a ppe a l. Se e U.S. Auto Parts N e tw ork , Inc . v . Parts Ge e k

, LLC , 692 F.3d 1009, 1021 (9th C ir. 2012) (re m anding for the distric t c ourt to e xam ine in the first insta nc e issue s not pre viously

re a c he d that m a y re quire fa c tua l de ve l opm e nt). 3. Die de ric h a lso a

rgue s tha t Provide nc e re ta l iate d a ga inst him for le a v ing work while sic k a

nd for re que sting va c ation tim e . B ut it is c le ar from the re c ord that Die de ric h wa s disc ipline d for le aving thehospita l without ade quat e ly notify ing his a

tte nding phy sic ia

n a nd without following protoc ols for e nsuring tha t
anothe r doc tor would beatte nding to his pa tie nts, not for c hoosing to go hom e whe n he wa s sic k. Die de ric h’ s va c at ion re que st c la im fa ils be c a

use his re que sting
va c ation tim e is not a

“ prote c te d a c tivity ” unde r the W LAD. Se e W a sh. R e v. C ode § 49.60.210. 4. Die de ric h forfe ite d his bre a c h of c o ntra c t c la im by volunta rily dism issing it with pre judic e in the distric t c ourt. Se e C onc ha v . London , 62 F.3d 1493, 1507–08 (9th C ir. 1995). Thus, we dism iss a s m oot his a

ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s lim ita tion of c ontra c t da

m a ge s. 5. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Die de ric h c ould not ba se his
c om m on la w wrongful te rm ination c la im on viola tions of theW LAD. Se e Be nne tt
v . Hardy , 784 P.2d 1258, 1263 (Wa s h. 1990) (re je c ting wrongful discha

rge tort 4c la im s tha

t we re e nc om

pa s se d by sta tutory c la im s). B ut we disa g re e with the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c lusion tha t Die de ric h

fa ile d to ide ntify

a re le va nt public polic y outsideof the W LAD. Se eC udne y v . ALSC O, Inc
. , 259 P.3d 244, 246 (W a sh. 2011) (sta ting tha t the first e l e m e nt of a

wrongful te rm ination c l a im is “ the
e xiste nc e of a

c l e ar public polic y ” ). W a shington Re vise d C ode § 18.130.180(15), whic h a ddre sse s “ e nga ging in a profe ssion involving c onta c t with thepublic while suffe ring from

a c o nta g i ous or infe c tious dise a se involving serious risk to public he a lth,” e vide nc e s suc h a polic y . W e ne ve rthe le ss a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Die d e ric h’ s wrongful te rm ination c la im be c a use Die de ric h fa ile d to
e sta blish a c a u sa l c onne c tion be twe e n

his ta k ing sic k le ave and a

ny a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion. Se e C

udne y , 259 P.3d a

t 246. Hewa s disc ipline d for fa iling to prope rly

notify his supe rvisors a

nd ha nd off his pa

tie nts. Die de ric h

a sse rts no ba sis for a

public polic y

prote c ting a

n e m ploy e e ’ s c hoic e to le ave work without
e nsuring c ritic a l work will be ha ndle d by som e one e lse
. 6. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Die de ric h fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts tha t
c ould e sta blish thee x iste nc e of a

va lid busine ss e xpe c ta

nc y . Se a-Pac C

o. v . Unite d Food &C

omme rc i al W

ork e rs Loc al Union 44 , 699 P.2d 217, 220 (W a sh. 1985) (“ The pla i ntiff m

ust show tha

t the future opportunitie s a nd profits a

re a re a s ona ble e xpe c tation a

nd not ba se d on m e re ly

wishful thinking.”

(c iting C aruso 5v . Loc al 690, Int’l Bhd. of Te amste rs , 653 P.2d 638 (W a sh. C t. App. 1982))). First, Provide nc e m a d e no prom ise tha t Die de ric h would bee ntitle d to c o m ple te his
re side nc y . Die de ric h wa s working under a one -y e ar c ontra c t a s a

se c ond-y e ar re side nt, with no prom

ise tha t he would bepe rm itte d to c om ple t e the progra

m if his pe rform anc e fe ll be low pa r. Se c ond, Die de ric h doe s not show tha t he ha d a ny spe c ific busine s s e xpe c ta

nc y post-re side nc y . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and DISM ISSE D in par t.

6